In late 2013, after the status of the class action was challenged, the district court issued a summary judgment in favor of Google, which dismissed the complaint and confirmed that the Google Books project met all legal requirements for fair dealing. The Second Circuit Court of Appeal upheld the district court`s summary ruling in October 2015 and ruled that Google`s project «provided a public service without infringing intellectual property rights.» [1] The U.S. Supreme Court then rejected a petition to hear the case. [2] In note books, relatively short pieces of music, which span two or four pages, often have to be arranged, which minimizes the number of page changes for the performer. For example, a trilateral work (from the left sheet) with immediate effect of a two-sided work part includes a turn of page during each work. If the trilateral work (on the right sheet) was immediately followed on an empty side, the two-sided work extends to the left and right sides, which depreciates the need for a side change during the second work. Deliberately empty pages can also prevent a lateral turn during a difficult passage. Data advocates from the FEP and the American Civil Liberties Union also expressed concern that Google would follow its book services to users. [26] Data protection advocates want Google to offer privacy guarantees comparable to those enjoyed by visitors to traditional libraries. [27] [28] Others have denounced the colony for neglecting the privacy of readers.

[29] Issues of cartels and abuse of dominance were also raised, as Google was a dominant entity in the Internet services market. Because the transaction agreement covers previously digitized books and provides a revenue model for future digitization, it gives «Google control over the digitization of virtually all copyrighted books in the United States.» [30] As the licensing agreement is not exclusive, it does not necessarily bind publishers to Google`s service. In a newspaper article, MIT professor Jerry A. Hausman and Criterion Economics President J. Gregory Sidak conclude that the service will not be able to exercise market power. Hausman and Sidak believe that the net google book search should bring a significant increase in consumer surplus. [31] A «declaration of interest» by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), filed in September 2009, was objected to the transaction.

The DOJ statement acknowledged that the comparison was a step in the right direction, but identified potential concerns about cartels and abuse of position with current terms of comparison: «The current transaction proposal would stifle innovation and competition in favour of a monopoly on access, distribution and pricing of the world`s largest collection of e-books and would strengthen a dominant position in research and research. [32] [33] The time limit for reviewing class actions and objections has been set at an expedited time, with objections to be made before January 28, 2010 and fairness hearings on February 18. [12] Although the volume of complaints was lower than the original count, they remained critical of the billing conditions.